Wing Chun Modifications

Wing Chun deserves to be evolved.

It was a brilliant art for its time and place. Against other forms of Chinese Gung Fu, it's absolutely amazing, but times have changed. The odds of fighting against traditional Shaolin styles is almost 0%, especially in the ring. Why train a system designed to do just that?

These days, you will see no horse stances, but you will very likely see 100% ground fighting. That's a far cry from the old scene in ancient China, where almost everyone used a variation of the horse stance and there was a little Chin Na, but no pure ground fighting.

Luckily, Wing Chun was built on principles and any techniques that fit these principles, can be considered Wing Chun. What art is more disposed to practical evolution?

...so why do people bust a Ma stance in the ring?
...why do people try to stop a takedown with a chain punch to the top of the head?
...where are your brains?

Here are my thoughts on the direction WIng Chun should go.

A) Add a stance for the ring --- Don't lose the traditional stances, simply borrow a boxer's footwork until it is the right time for a traditional WC stance to be used. Keep your footwork relaxed and flowing, until it's an appropriate time to root, then you may use the power of the Wing Chun stances. If any of you are fimiliar with the Water/Ice metaphor, then you will know what I'm saying.

1. Mobility is a tactical advantage.
2. The Ma is weak to takedowns, due the decreased depth of your base.
3. The traditional lead stance is also weak to takedowns, due to the rearward weight distribution.
4. Both are less mobile than the common boxer's stance.

B) Real ground work --- Simply learn the theories like anything else. Take another art to expand your knowledge of positioning and common strategy. Don't become a BJJ master, but know your enemy. Take what you learned and stylize it with the Wing Chun principles. There is no reason that Wing Chun could not have true ground fighting techniques. The results could actually be pretty interesting, if someone with a brain tried this.

1. Relaxation (in comparison to your opponent) can be applied to ground fighting.
2. Economy of motion can be applied to ground fighting.
3. Directness can be applied to ground fighting.
4. Simplicity can be applied to ground fighting.
5. You can utilize superior positioning to afford simultaneous attack/defense.
6. All principles of Wing Chun can be applied to ground fighting.

This is due to the fact that Wing Chun was made scientifically. They took the art of stand-up fighting to a whole new level, but that's the problem. The principles were postulated in the context of stand-up fighting. For example, it is tough to apply center line theory as comprehensively on the ground as on your feet, because it was designed to be apply in a standing scenario.

Even with that said, all you have to do is take WC to the drawing board and write an ammendment in the context of ground principles, rather than stand-up. Unfortunately, I have seen no qualified WC practicioners with experience in ground-based arts and the will/intelligence to pull it off.

Wing Chun does not have to have an achilles heel. There can be a day where you don't have any more forums roasting Wing Chun for being weak to grappling/ground-fighting. It has the advantage of being evolutionary in nature.

Does anyone have an opinion on this or suggestions for such an evolution?

I personally think that if you can take the principles to the limit and expand the art to a whole new level, Wing Chun could cause quite an upset in modern day MMA competition.

Wing Chun isn't defined by what it looks like. The "moves" are just a by-product of the principles. If the principles were different, the "moves" would be different.

For example, any good instructor will slap you in the face for asking him a question like "What move <insert garbage here>?", then tell you to follow the principles.

That's why Wing Chun should be the art most inclined to evolve over time, but for some reason, it doesn't. Much worse is that few will admit it.

In fact, it's extremely common to ask a WC Sifu what you should do if you end up in a ground-fighting scenario and he will tell you "Simply apply the same principles" and proceed to make up crap off the top of his head.

Sure, the majority of the principles can be adapted to the ground with a little tweaking, but most people don't understand the ground to begin with and, thusly, can not possibly apply the principles properly. Those that offer the enlightenment of WC ground fighting, usually have NO EXPERIENCE IN ANY GRAPPLING-BASED ART.

Bottom line...

Wing Chun is effective against the arts that existed in the region it was created. Wing Chun is effective against 95% of the people you will fight in your civilian life. Wing Chun is NOT currently effective in MMA, where ground-based strategies are common.

Wing Chun isn't defined by what it looks like. The "moves" are just a by-product of the principles. If the principles were different, the "moves" would be different.

For example, any good instructor will slap you in the face for asking him a question like "What move <insert garbage here>?", then tell you to follow the principles.

That's why Wing Chun should be the art most inclined to evolve over time, but for some reason, it doesn't. Much worse is that few will admit it.

In fact, it's extremely common to ask a WC Sifu what you should do if you end up in a ground-fighting scenario and he will tell you "Simply apply the same principles" and proceed to make up crap off the top of his head.

Sure, the majority of the principles can be adapted to the ground with a little tweaking, but most people don't understand the ground to begin with and, thusly, can not possibly apply the principles properly. Those that offer the enlightenment of WC ground fighting, usually have NO EXPERIENCE IN ANY GRAPPLING-BASED ART.

Bottom line...

^^This^^ isn't really illustrating your point very well .

Principles are grand ... but if hold your principles in one hand and **** in the other what are you going to be holding ?

Look at it this way ... how do you differentiate one style from another ?

Originally Posted by ghost55

Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.

“I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
BILL HICKS,
1961-1994

Originally Posted by WFMurphyPhD

Slamming the man in the bottom position from time to time keeps everybody on their toes and discourages butt scooting stupidity.

Wing Chun is effective against the arts that existed in the region it was created. Wing Chun is effective against 95% of the people you will fight in your civilian life. Wing Chun is NOT currently effective in MMA, where ground-based strategies are common.

You are making statistics up on the fly now .

After you describe "how (do) you differentiate one style from another ?" go to youtube.com and look at where most of the untrained fights go .

Spoiler:

I will give you a head start it has to do with gravity .

Originally Posted by ghost55

Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.

“I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
BILL HICKS,
1961-1994

Originally Posted by WFMurphyPhD

Slamming the man in the bottom position from time to time keeps everybody on their toes and discourages butt scooting stupidity.

- Here's a bit about why WC looks the way it does. Wing Chun is said to be a blend of Crane and Snake Gung Fu. It is so because it's supposed creator knew these styles (and many others), thought up the principles for her new art, then cut away everything that didn't fit. Snake and Crane just happened to contribute more than other styles, including some handy structures. That's the only reason it looks the way it does, right now.

- Street fights end up on the ground because common people don't have the training to avoid the ground, so they are at the mercy of natural ability (one guy is bigger or has watched a few UFC fights in his day) and luck (someone falls for no reason). That's also true for whoever may be trying to "take them down", which is fortunate. As in most arts, Wing Chun can actually handle some idiot trying to knock them over with stuff they saw the night before on RASSLIN', etc.

Note - I'm not considering fights between MAs, because the odds of going about your daily life as a cubicle-inhabiting family man, and suddenly finding yourself in a KUNG FU BATTLE TO THE DEATH, are pretty slim--- some insignifigant number, such as 5%, which is where i get my "95%" statistic.

Seriously...

Breathe, smell the roses, and stop wasting your energy trying to flame. Something constructive would be a nice change of pace, but I can't really stop you from doing your best to fill my thread up with crap.

Can't we all just get along?

Oh, I almost forgot. Here's a specific answer to how you tell arts apart.

"You tell two arts apart by comparing what you were taught about their nature and what you experienced of their way while under the instruction of qualified teachers, when you learned both of the arts in question."

Otherwise, you can only describe the arts objectively. This is like comparing a martial art to a chess peice, which can only be defined by the moves it makes. Many will agree that there is MUCH more to MA.

I have made the mistake of seeing MA objectively before and I have always been amazed to see how much i missed completely. That's the stuff you can't read/see on the internet. The things you can only feel. The web can't even touch the tip of that iceberg.

If you can get this thread past 400 posts, you are a pretty good troll.

(Here, I'll help you out a bit.)

What makes you qualified to decide what should be changed within a given teaching methodology and also qualified to decide what other aspects and principles are applicable beyond the realm for which they were originally designed?

Be specific.

Calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

"Your calm and professional manner of response is really draining all the fun out of this. Can you reply more like Dr. Fagbot or something? Call me some names, mention some sand in my vagina or something of the sort. You can't expect me to come up with reasonable arguments man!" -- MaverickZ

These days, you will see no horse stances, but you will very likely see 100% ground fighting. That's a far cry from the old scene in ancient China, where almost everyone used a variation of the horse stance and there was a little Chin Na, but no pure ground fighting.

What? I highly, highly, highly doubt that an individual, in the past, that was bent over to punch the crap out of your head would do so from a horse stance. Moreover, it's more likely he would try to do so with a weapons of sort rather than empty handed (given that weapons, both sharp and blunt, were more prevalent in the past than nowadays.)

Originally Posted by TanPunch

Luckily, Wing Chun was built on principles and any techniques that fit these principles

What principles? Besides, all fighting arts are built on principles. You need to be more specific so that this doesn't sound like an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by TanPunch

...so why do people bust a Ma stance in the ring?

Who does that?

Originally Posted by TanPunch

Here are my thoughts on the direction WIng Chun should go.

A) Add a stance for the ring --- Don't lose the traditional stances, simply borrow a boxer's footwork until it is the right time for a traditional WC stance to be used. Keep your footwork relaxed and flowing, until it's an appropriate time to root, then you may use the power of the Wing Chun stances. If any of you are fimiliar with the Water/Ice metaphor, then you will know what I'm saying.

Why a stance specific to the ring? You are still thinking of stances as if they are rigid things. Why would a street fight be different from a match in the ring (in term of stances, structures or mobility)?

Originally Posted by TanPunch

1. Mobility is a tactical advantage.

Who's mobility?

Originally Posted by TanPunch

2. The Ma is weak to takedowns, due the decreased depth of your base.

Wrong. Takedown defense is not simply about having a low stance or base. I can crouch myself, pretending to be a wrestler, but I don't know how to move and evade, if I don't know how to sprawl, then I have weak (or basically no) takedown defense.

Originally Posted by TanPunch

3. The traditional lead stance is also weak to takedowns, due to the rearward weight distribution.

Wrong again (see paragraph above.)

Originally Posted by TanPunch

4. Both are less mobile than the common boxer's stance.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by 'lead stance', but there are boxers with a strong lead out there. I'm not really sure at all what you understand by 'common boxer's stance.'

Originally Posted by TanPunch

B) Real ground work --- Simply learn the theories like anything else. Take another art to expand your knowledge of positioning and common strategy. Don't become a BJJ master, but know your enemy.

So far so good... as long as you are aware that it takes quite a lot of time and effort to learn grappling (.ie. 6 months to a year of continous grappling training under a qualified grappling instructor... just to become efficient with the basics... that's an educated guesstimate, btw) - a lot of people claim to be 'knowing their enemy' by taking a couple of grappling lessons and 'seminars' from somebody who took lessons and 'seminars' from some other person who took lessons and 'seminars'... you get the picture.

Originally Posted by TanPunch

Take what you learned and stylize it with the Wing Chun principles.

What the heck does that mean? Why would you do that?

Originally Posted by TanPunch

1. Relaxation (in comparison to your opponent) can be applied to ground fighting.

The street argument is retarded. BJJ is so much overkill for the street that its ridiculous. Unless you're the idiot that picks a fight with the high school wrestling team, barring knife or gun play, the opponent shouldn't make it past double leg + ground and pound - Osiris